The effects of discourse goals on written arguments in elementary school students

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of discourse goals on argumentative writing among Chinese elementary school students. Eight fourth-grade classes were assigned to one of three conditions—Persuasion Dialogue (PD), Deliberation Dialogue (DD) and Control—to discuss four controversial topics designed for the Morality and Law subject. Before writing on the intervention topics, PD and DD students engaged in direct peer-to-peer argumentative written dialogues, while Control students addressed the topics and textbook contents in traditional teacher-led whole-class discussions. In essays on multiple intervention topics and a post-assessment topic, PD and DD students outperformed Control students in considering an alternative viewpoint. PD students, however, showed an advantage over DD students and Control students, in rebutting a counterargument and in attributing these counterarguments to the preceding dialogues, as well as in employing evidence to support claims. DD students, in contrast, were more likely to employ a dismissal strategy over a refutation strategy. Strengths of the argumentative discourse goal of persuasion over deliberation for elementary school students are discussed.